If this is your first visit, be sure to check out our Posting Rules. You will have to register before you can post.
Anyone found posting offensive material will be banned and the police may be notified. Help us keep these message boards an enjoyable place to visit by clicking the Report Abuse button if you see offensive content.

It is the role of government to encourage behaviour that benefits society as a whole. Or in some cases, discourage bad behaviour (taxes on cigarettes for example, diesel taxes for pollution etc...).

You don't want everyone driving into city centres, both for environmental reasons and congestion reasons (which will block taxis, couriers etc...) - it would be chaos. So you discourage it by having limited parking.

The issue I have is public transport is too expensive. Positive reinforcement is stronger than negative reinforcement. Limited parking and fines is negative, if they subsidised or capped profits or even nationalised public transport to greatly reduce costs that would be the ultimate encouragement to ditch your car.

I would believe that Jared if public transport was invested in, cycle paths, alternative methods of entry into the city centre. However when you do none of those and simply cordon off the city and charge drivers more and fine them then there's just no evidence where I live this is the conditioning you speak of.

The policy is clear. No public transport improvements, no alternative access to city centre and the focus still exactly on drivers, bus and taxis and just charge you more or fine you. The evidence is increasing costs of public transport with no improvement to service, increasing parking costs and no improvements.

No investment in alternative methods of entry, obvious increases in parking costs and increases in transport costs and with no improvements to either. You said yourself public transport is too expensive.

There's a reason for that Jared. More cars, less space, higher parking, more fines and higher public transport costs with no investment. Are you certain are councils are benevolent and just trying to protect the city centre? There's no evidence of it.

Now if public transport was increased, if alternative methods of entry given, access for cycles increased then yes I'd agree that the policy you speak of could move people towards alternative methods of city centre entry to alleviate pressure on roads.

However none of that is happening. Pressure on roads is not alleviated because there are no alternatives. Parking costs go up, public transport costs go up and fines increase.

I'm not suggesting that's the policy where you are from. Just here.

I wouldn't agree with more parking either. The obvious answer is alternative methods of entry. Increase in cycle paths, walkway into the centre. Parking outside the city centre improved with shuttle or walkways. Design flaws with overcrowding are obvious but charging people more but offering nothing else isn't looking to help city centre.

Ron that is a great point. I absolutely mean that. I've not known you too often to consider the bigger picture as well as the individual and see that are not mutually exclusive. I fully expected your position to be 'stupid peasants' there is a sign they're just lazy on their phones............fine them!

In some cases that would be true. However as you rightly point out the system itself causes problems with too many cars, too few spaces and punishing people for that is strange. A fantastic point Ron, it really is.

I always consider the options/angles - discard what doesn't fit and all that

I would believe that Jared if public transport was invested in, cycle paths, alternative methods of entry into the city centre. However when you do none of those and simply cordon off the city and charge drivers more and fine them then there's just no evidence where I live this is the conditioning you speak of.

The policy is clear. No public transport improvements, no alternative access to city centre and the focus still exactly on drivers, bus and taxis and just charge you more or fine you. The evidence is increasing costs of public transport with no improvement to service, increasing parking costs and no improvements.

No investment in alternative methods of entry, obvious increases in parking costs and increases in transport costs and with no improvements to either. You said yourself public transport is too expensive.

There's a reason for that Jared. More cars, less space, higher parking, more fines and higher public transport costs with no investment. Are you certain are councils are benevolent and just trying to protect the city centre? There's no evidence of it.

Now if public transport was increased, if alternative methods of entry given, access for cycles increased then yes I'd agree that the policy you speak of could move people towards alternative methods of city centre entry to alleviate pressure on roads.

However none of that is happening. Pressure on roads is not alleviated because there are no alternatives. Parking costs go up, public transport costs go up and fines increase.

Like I said, you're speaking about your city and I of mine. London has loads of alternative means of transportation into the city, it is developing cycleways, more tube lines, car sharing services, more bus services, whilst it simultaneously increases congestion charges and parking charges.

And the result is this, reduced cars in the city falling consistently since 1990. It works.

Like I said, the problem is transport costs are exorbitant but that is a whole other discussion we've had many times about privatisation of railways, profits, efficiencies etc....

The underlying point is limited parking is to discourage people using cars. Now if that power is being abused, if money isn't being used to provide alternatives etc... then yes it is wrongly punitive - but that is the issue, not the concept of parking fines in the first place.

Like I said, you're speaking about your city and I of mine. London has loads of alternative means of transportation into the city, it is developing cycleways, more tube lines, car sharing services, more bus services, whilst it simultaneously increases congestion charges and parking charges.

And the result is this, reduced cars in the city falling consistently since 1990. It works.

Like I said, the problem is transport costs are exorbitant but that is a whole other discussion we've had many times about privatisation of railways, profits, efficiencies etc....

The underlying point is limited parking is to discourage people using cars. Now if that power is being abused, if money isn't being used to provide alternatives etc... then yes it is wrongly punitive - but that is the issue, not the concept of parking fines in the first place.

London is very different. The City of London is an economic monster. It has such wealth that it's too expensive for the mass work force to live there. Therefore the transport links must be exceptional to allow the daily commute of those the keep the machine ticking over.

That's how we know with correct infrastructure even a behemoth on the scale of London can work. That's why we know for certain other cities are neglected either through lack of investment or lack of interest. It isn't the fact it can't be done because London is evidence even the largest cities can work with great public transport.

In other cities they don't bother. They don't invest in public transport or alternative transport and simply charge more or fine. It's actually a microcosm of how government views the UK economy. London is to be supported by sucking dry everywhere else.

That's the whole point of the high speed rail network being built in the UK. The public position is it is to help poorer parts of the country connect with 'the capital' and that will benefit the poorer parts. It sounds wonderful but is quite frankly ridiculous.

When weaker parts of the economy connect to the centre of the economy it again isn't benevolent, it will suck them dry. When you consider the rate of expansion of London, rising house prices and how people are being pushed out of their homes the monster is growing.

What happens when the monster runs short of food supply? You just create more food and those arteries from cities outside of London will feed it. There will be a huge increase in work force commuting to London from other cities at high speed and then commuting home. Solving the problem of workers meeting rising housing costs in London, providing talent and skills to corporations at even lower costs from outside of London.

London is very different. The City of London is an economic monster. It has such wealth that it's too expensive for the mass work force to live there. Therefore the transport links must be exceptional to allow the daily commute of those the keep the machine ticking over.

That's how we know with correct infrastructure even a behemoth on the scale of London can work. That's why we know for certain other cities are neglected either through lack of investment or lack of interest. It isn't the fact it can't be done because London is evidence even the largest cities can work with great public transport.

In other cities they don't bother. They don't invest in public transport or alternative transport and simply charge more or fine. It's actually a microcosm of how government views the UK economy. London is to be supported by sucking dry everywhere else.

That's the whole point of the high speed rail network being built in the UK. The public position is it is to help poorer parts of the country connect with 'the capital' and that will benefit the poorer parts. It sounds wonderful but is quite frankly ridiculous.

When weaker parts of the economy connect to the centre of the economy it again isn't benevolent, it will suck them dry. When you consider the rate of expansion of London, rising house prices and how people are being pushed out of their homes the monster is growing.

What happens when the monster runs short of food supply? You just create more food and those arteries from cities outside of London will feed it. There will be a huge increase in work force commuting to London from other cities at high speed and then commuting home. Solving the problem of workers meeting rising housing costs in London, providing talent and skills to corporations at even lower costs from outside of London.

You wont get any arguments from me on the under-investment of other areas.

Anyone see the snippets from Varoufakis' new book? Pretty eye opening, he has basically recorded conversations with EU officials and then accounted for them compared to their public statements.

Does not paint the EU in a good light at all, probably best not show Ghyllred

Interesting "recommendations" for May and Brexit in there, says they get you on the process. Will deliberately mislead, pretend they don't know or need to check things during the day and then at night will push through a raft of stuff at night. In general just very undemocratic and conniving.

Despite all this he still recommends staying in, not because he likes the EU or because he would have recommended the system in the first place, but because now its there there is more chance working within it.

Anyone see the snippets from Varoufakis' new book? Pretty eye opening, he has basically recorded conversations with EU officials and then accounted for them compared to their public statements.

Does not paint the EU in a good light at all, probably best not show Ghyllred

Interesting "recommendations" for May and Brexit in there, says they get you on the process. Will deliberately mislead, pretend they don't know or need to check things during the day and then at night will push through a raft of stuff at night. In general just very undemocratic and conniving.

Despite all this he still recommends staying in, not because he likes the EU or because he would have recommended the system in the first place, but because now its there there is more chance working within it.

Anyone see the snippets from Varoufakis' new book? Pretty eye opening, he has basically recorded conversations with EU officials and then accounted for them compared to their public statements.

Does not paint the EU in a good light at all, probably best not show Ghyllred

Interesting "recommendations" for May and Brexit in there, says they get you on the process. Will deliberately mislead, pretend they don't know or need to check things during the day and then at night will push through a raft of stuff at night. In general just very undemocratic and conniving.

Despite all this he still recommends staying in, not because he likes the EU or because he would have recommended the system in the first place, but because now its there there is more chance working within it.

Funny, I have sat in many EU meetings and what you see on the outside is completely different to the arguments behind closed doors. Each 'power' state is busy extracting concessions in return for signing up to policies that they had no interest in the first place.

Their negotiators don't have the authority to actually do too much without having to run things past capitals so that might explain the delays (they always ask for 'flexible wording'. But their strength, in my view, is in their skill at compromise. They are not bound by as many red lines as member states are and when they are restricted they call a QMV and use friendlier states to pass the resolutions (in return for favours in other portfolios).

Funny, I have sat in many EU meetings and what you see on the outside is completely different to the arguments behind closed doors. Each 'power' state is busy extracting concessions in return for signing up to policies that they had no interest in the first place.

Their negotiators don't have the authority to actually do too much without having to run things past capitals so that might explain the delays (they always ask for 'flexible wording'. But their strength, in my view, is in their skill at compromise. They are not bound by as many red lines as member states are and when they are restricted they call a QMV and use friendlier states to pass the resolutions (in return for favours in other portfolios).

From the sounds of what Varoufakis says, the only people with real power in terms of the economics are a bunch of German technocrats who single handedly pull all the financial strings - he even said they put a French person in power purely for show and then completely puppeteered him behind closed doors.

I think the central bank and finances of the EU need to be separated from everything else, when discussing these things. Overall I think in terms of social reform, regulations, consumer protections, immigration, etc... - the EU has been beneficial in the direction they have gone. Economics is a different matter, however - they really are just another backroom elite rolling out neoliberal policy to extract wealth from the masses.

I'm not sure what aspect of discussion you would have been in? But you do make an interesting point in that member states are all tied to a number of rules and regulations but the EU themselves are not. That sort of sums up the problem.

After obviously being closely watched militarily, its basically Germany's way of expansion and ruling again.

From the sounds of what Varoufakis says, the only people with real power in terms of the economics are a bunch of German technocrats who single handedly pull all the financial strings - he even said they put a French person in power purely for show and then completely puppeteered him behind closed doors.

I think the central bank and finances of the EU need to be separated from everything else, when discussing these things. Overall I think in terms of social reform, regulations, consumer protections, immigration, etc... - the EU has been beneficial in the direction they have gone. Economics is a different matter, however - they really are just another backroom elite rolling out neoliberal policy to extract wealth from the masses.

I'm not sure what aspect of discussion you would have been in? But you do make an interesting point in that member states are all tied to a number of rules and regulations but the EU themselves are not. That sort of sums up the problem.

After obviously being closely watched militarily, its basically Germany's way of expansion and ruling again.

I worked on a few portfolios within trade and in JHA. To give an example - only a few Member States (MS) have an interest in sanctions - mainly the bigger MS and those from Northern Europe. But in Commission meetings where we decide an EU position, a Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) vote is called if there are major differences of opinion. In that situation, many more MS will turn up to vote despite having no interest in the months of discussions beforehand, and they will vote either to support their historic EU block or vote in line with the Commission (at the request of the Commission) and for both expect support on issues that they DO care about in other portfolios. In short MS are happy to block most humanitarian or moral initiatives in order to further their own financial (always trade) interests. It's why the EU is good for making money but crappy as a moral example on issues outside of Europe unless pushed for by 2 of the big 3.

As the Commission draft the 'lines to take' or 'negotiating position' for QMV - they have considerable power due to the form of words they decide and what they propose (only they can propose). Objections usually happen before a QMV rather than objecting to the QMV. By the time one is called the outcome is already known. It's why we shouldn't hold too much stock in figures showing how many times we or others actually tried to veto the EU. If we know we will lose, we usually abstain unless we are making a point.

Biggest non-UK losers to us leaving are the northern europeans who almost always support our position due to similar thinking (i've been at meetings where the Danish and Irish reps (sometimes Swedish, Finnish and Dutch too) have bluntly told me they are instructed by their govt to take up whatever position the UK decides (due to trust in us (and our resources and similar ambitions) not anything else). This sometimes includes Germany. Germany's attention was on EU/Eurozone and finance focused portfolios while ours was more Global affairs and Trade.

Bottom line is the UK does not have the QMV numbers and with the Commission taking more responsibilities, it means we are less able to control what we want. It's now not just the UK and 27 other MS, but a powerful Commission and now increasingly powerful parliament. Commission can divide and rule by preying on MS apathy and restricted resources meaning most MS only focus on select portfolios rather than all.

Cheers mate, very interesting. I've heard before of the Commission's power and nice to hear it first hand as well.

It's our biggest brexit obstacle. Rather than be instructed by MS capitals (via council), the Commission itself took a hard inflexible position based on fear and ideology. Usually we would rely on the Commission to do the compromising for us - so now it will come down to how ********** off Commission bosses are and a game of chicken.

It's our biggest brexit obstacle. Rather than be instructed by MS capitals (via council), the Commission itself took a hard inflexible position based on fear and ideology. Usually we would rely on the Commission to do the compromising for us - so now it will come down to how ********** off Commission bosses are and a game of chicken.

i work in children and YP mental health and things have never been worse. Over the last 7 years we have seen an unprecedented re-distribution of wealth from poor to rich and now for a country who sit 5th or 6th in the world's biggest economies we cant look after our mentally ill YP, we have people using food banks and a huge rise in inequality. Go abroad, go to Holland for example and see the standard of living enjoyed by its citizens rich and poor. See their transport network or that of any mainland European country and weep. Add to this the fact a lot of London is out of bounds for our young people wanting to rent or buy their first property because its owned by buy to rent people or foreign oligarchs.

All of this in this country is entirely self-inflicted by a vicious rw govt supported by an even more rw press. It is quite incredible what is happening.

i work in children and YP mental health and things have never been worse. Over the last 7 years we have seen an unprecedented re-distribution of wealth from poor to rich and now for a country who sit 5th or 6th in the world's biggest economies we cant look after our mentally ill YP, we have people using food banks and a huge rise in inequality. Go abroad, go to Holland for example and see the standard of living enjoyed by its citizens rich and poor. See their transport network or that of any mainland European country and weep. Add to this the fact a lot of London is out of bounds for our young people wanting to rent or buy their first property because its owned by buy to rent people or foreign oligarchs.

All of this in this country is entirely self-inflicted by a vicious rw govt supported by an even more rw press. It is quite incredible what is happening.

I though the gap had actually narrowed in the last 7 years? (genuine question). I agree the poorest seem poorer though.

i work in children and YP mental health and things have never been worse. Over the last 7 years we have seen an unprecedented re-distribution of wealth from poor to rich and now for a country who sit 5th or 6th in the world's biggest economies we cant look after our mentally ill YP, we have people using food banks and a huge rise in inequality. Go abroad, go to Holland for example and see the standard of living enjoyed by its citizens rich and poor. See their transport network or that of any mainland European country and weep. Add to this the fact a lot of London is out of bounds for our young people wanting to rent or buy their first property because its owned by buy to rent people or foreign oligarchs.

All of this in this country is entirely self-inflicted by a vicious rw govt supported by an even more rw press. It is quite incredible what is happening.

Blame the do gooders - their dislike of people groupings, means that some standards have fallen on the rubbish heap

Personally I don't think this world has that many that actually want to do good....Nurses would be my only vote - teachers are just glorified baby sitters and given that most people are ashamed of their history.... Politicians are criminals

Everybody has an agenda and I am suspicious of most - 1st question is always why did they do that

Like all the idiots that say only today looks after the world and the environment
We had a better recycling service - things lasted longer, not built to replace in a 3 year window..... Today is a throw away society - how is that good.....
We didn't have the escalators and lifts they have today - we walked everywhere
We had delivery services, soft drinks and milk were delivered, used, washed out and re used

Today is p... poor and too many stand with their fingers up their backside, expecting others to hand them a life line....

Blame the do gooders - their dislike of people groupings, means that some standards have fallen on the rubbish heap

A familiar rw claim based on no evidence whatsoever.

It is the right who have made our society poorer who have made the political discourse more toxic and who have debased people's trust in collective community outcomes. Its each person for him/her self now more than it ever has been.

It is the right who have made our society poorer who have made the political discourse more toxic and who have debased people's trust in collective community outcomes. Its each person for him/her self now more than it ever has been.

At last the truth is finally written: Excellent article in this morning's Guardian by Aditya Chakrabortty. This is the real rip off Britain and not some Angela Rippon gentle stroll on early evening tv.

"And so to the big question. The one that has dogged us ever since the EU referendum and haunts every Brexiteer’s chlorinated daydreams. What is Britain for? Cliche-mongers will tell you that Britain lost an empire then couldn’t find a role. They are wrong. After careful study of recent newspaper articles, I have discovered just that new part – and today, dear reader, I am going to share it with you.

The British are now world-beaters at paying other people to rip them off. We are number one at handing over cash to “investors” who do no investing, to “entrepreneurs” who run monopolies – and who then turn around and tap us up for a bit more on the way out.

Consider two stories from the past few days. British Gas announces its electricity prices will rise by 12.5%, starting next month. Just as the cold nights start drawing in, more than 3 million Britons will find their bills are more expensive. Never mind that the competition watchdog judged last year that British Gas and other energy giants were taking well over a billion pounds a year through “excessive prices”. This privatised industry has a tradition of ripping off loyal customers to uphold.

Think about the scandal of people having to pay huge ground rents just to stay in their own homes. For years, big property developers have been flogging the freeholds on newly built estates to speculators, often based offshore, whose only relationship with the people living there is to hit them with ever-larger bills. Tens of thousands of families have been bundled up and turned into human revenue streams. Nor are they alone. Whether as taxpayers or consumers, pretty much everyone in Britain is now human feedstock for Big Capital.

This may not be how you see yourself. After all, you’re a customer and in our dynamic, choice-stuffed markets the customer is king. Except that the propaganda doesn’t match reality. If, like me, you live in London and use water, you are forced to give your business to Thames Water. The same Thames Water that is owned by a consortium of international investors, whose interests were until recently managed by Macquarie, an investment firm with headquarters in Australia. I have reported before on this arrangement, which ran from December 2006 until March of this year. Between 2006 and 2015, Thames Water divvied up £1.6bn in dividends to its small circle of shareholders, who in turn loaded up the company with billions in debt.

These “investors” were not doing much investing – indeed, they will shoulder neither the costs nor the risks of building London’s £4bn super-sewer. Much of the money will come from me and Thames Water’s 15 million other customers, through our bills. Between 2011 and 2015, the company paid no corporation tax at all. Someone bagged a bargain, and it wasn’t the taxpayer.

Think about the train operators that are subsidised to the tune of billions by public money – only to penalise the public with eye-watering fares and crap broadband. We pay them to rip us off. Ponder the new nuclear station about to be built by the Chinese and French at Hinkley Point, at an estimated cost to British households of £30bn. Neither David Cameron nor Theresa May would countenance the British government creating a new power station, but they will pay way over the odds for foreign governments to do so.

Want more examples? Think about the giant outsourcing industry, where a multinational such as G4S can fail to lay on enough guards for the 2012 London Olympics and charge taxpayers for phantom electronic tags on dead criminals – and still be put in charge of securing the Royal Mint.

In the early 00s, the Mail and the Express would bang on and on about “Rip-off Britain” and how booze and fags and Levi’s jeans were cheaper abroad. Right under their nose a rip-off industry was getting started in the form of the private finance initiative. Tony Blair saw the arrangement as a way of funding more schools and hospitals without raising taxes or taking on public debt. As York University’s Kevin Farnsworth points out, PFIs also served an ideological purpose. “Try getting change in… public services,” he once chortled to a conference of private equity financiers. “I bear the scars on my back.” PFI – putting the private sector in charge of providing public infrastructure – was one of his ways of getting that change.

These are all examples of losing control – over our bills, over our taxes, over our water and trains and schools
Almost two decades later, we can see the results. PFIs have produced more fleecing than Millets. A PFI primary school in Middlesbrough, only opened in 2006, was demolished in 2015 because its foundations had been built on “defective fill material” – literally, dodgy ground. Children and staff moved to another site – nevertheless, payments on the contract had to be made. In Liverpool, a PFI school has been shut since 2014 – because there aren’t enough pupils to keep it open – yet taxpayers still pay £12,000 a day under the contract. These aren’t one-offs: they are inherent in the structure of PFIs, which dump all the risks on the public and hand the private sector all the rewards.

As the TES (formerly the Times Educational Supplement) found in April, one PFI school in Bristol that needed a new window blind will have to pay £8,154 for it. Another that had to install a tap is facing a bill for £2,211. Private companies get paid for the building, then get paid again for cleaning and maintenance and interest charges. Across the UK there are more than 700 PFI projects with a capital value of around £55bn. It is estimated that they will cost the public more than £300bn.

These are all examples of the public losing control – over our bills, over our taxes, over our water and trains and schools. Will freeing ourselves of the shackles of the European court of justice or EU state aid rules or any other Brexiteer hobbyhorse allow us to “take back control”? On the basics that govern our lives we have lost sovereignty. Brussels didn’t sell us down the river: Thatcher, Blair and Cameron did.

Leaving the EU won’t change any of this. Theresa May will continue to privatise chunks of the NHS. Philip Hammond will still flog Britain to foreign capital as a bargain basement of cheap workers and low taxes – one giant Poundland. And Britons will find more and more aspects of their daily lives picked over by big businesses for revenue streams."

Whilst I was posting this 2 stories popped up:
Teenager blogged that he'd found journey from Sheffield to Essex is cheaper Berlin.
And that Manchester to London is cheaper via Barcelona

It is the right who have made our society poorer who have made the political discourse more toxic and who have debased people's trust in collective community outcomes. Its each person for him/her self now more than it ever has been.

You wanna blame something other than people

Blame technology - mobiles and smartphones have killed a generation..... kids as young as 11 - not integrating coz they are more interested in FB, than the growing up process

Personally I don't think this world has that many that actually want to do good....Nurses would be my only vote - teachers are just glorified baby sitters and given that most people are ashamed of their history.... Politicians are criminals

Everybody has an agenda and I am suspicious of most - 1st question is always why did they do that

Like all the idiots that say only today looks after the world and the environmentWe had a better recycling service - things lasted longer, not built to replace in a 3 year window..... Today is a throw away society - how is that good.....We didn't have the escalators and lifts they have today - we walked everywhere
We had delivery services, soft drinks and milk were delivered, used, washed out and re used

Today is p... poor and too many stand with their fingers up their backside, expecting others to hand them a life line....

You are right on some points but others are laughable as usual, im not sure where you are getting your info.